How Unspeakable Evil Becomes A Spectator Sport

[OP ED]

thank you, lunarose.

For millenia, women have used birth control. In the dark ages it was the old "witches," or traditional folk midwives, whatever, who held the knowledge of what herb would do what.

I had a girlfriend who i fucked for several years, our birth control was an herb she took after every sex encounter. All it did was cause her blood to thin, preventing her egg from nesting.

The RU486, or the "morning after pill" does the same thing. Is this "killing"?

OPED, the original OTO documents explicitly state that a consciousness does not take possession of a fetus until around three months. There are many other religious ideas about when the driver takes hold of the vehicle. i don't know what is true, but I do know that if a spirit is taking possession of a body that is bound to be aborted, then it is destiny.

That's not cold. I mean, if you believe in a reincarnating spirit, then it must be a stage in the re-birth process.

If you believe in one soul, one life, heaven or hell forever, I feel sorry for you.

If you don't believe in a spirit, then it really shouldn't matter.

I think that a pre-sentient fetus has such a tenuous grip on life that no murder is involved. I also believe that when a mother-vehicle is giving over her body to another life or spirit presence then abortion should not occur usually. I mean, if there is a being in there who wants to live, than aborting it is killing. I do not think that this can occur prior to sentience.

But have you ever seen a pregnant woman? Did you know that the presence of a fetus turns the cartilage of the woman's bones into jelly?

That is radical.

I'll try to briefly respond to your points in order of their appearance. However, It should be said that I don't generally discuss this topic, because I consider it a waste of time.

Any action that directly or indirectly causes an organism to discontinue functioning is, by definition "killing". That said, I don't neccessarily consider all killing to be "equal" in this sense. for example, I do not equate the actions of the aforementioned Cop with the actions of also aforementioned babystomper, though both sets of actions resulted in the discontinuation of life.

I am aware of the OTO's position on habitation. I also consider it irrelevant, personally (gasp, I know). My own beliefs result more from the "practice" side of the equation than with the "theory" angle. Although I take pleasure in indulging 8bit's numerology fetish from time to time.

and I could give a fuck less about "destiny". All destiny means is what will actually happen.

You listed three possible "beliefs". Actually, I maintain all of them, in one sense or another to be somewhat true. Of course, this means that none of them are true.

My views are not dogmatic, though they tend to change little and slowly. They are also apolitical, both with regards to abortion and to the death penalty, as I consider our society, its science and goverment especially to be present inadequate to giving these issues proper consideration. This is perhaps more true because of the use of these issues to cause division for the purpose of conquest. I think we'd agree that we do not want George Bush deciding who lives and dies, be they born or unborn or otherwise.

I do not seek to press these views on others, not least because this is often fruitless and counterproductive. I would not seek to inhibit others to the rights of their own bodies. I do not regard anyone as having any "responsibility" to exist as a life support system regardless of the fact that I may consider the one connected to their system to be "alive" and the discontinuation of said support to be (technically) homocide.

I merely find the cavalier attitude with which this subject is often approached by the left especially to be distasteful and irresponsible at best. i.e. the equation of a fetus with one's hair. I'd like to see a more thoughtful and considered approach to this subject, especially concerning the murky legal grounds it creates. (see 8bit's mention of murder charges for non-carriers who cause spontaneous discontinuation of life-support function through violent acts on the carrier)

I guess I'd like to see people try to see it from the others' point of view on this, because both "sides" of the manufactured divide have important points to consider. For me this is not an either/or choice.

----

beyond this, of course, is the emotional attachment to one's views. For me, psychologically speaking, this is likely reactionary and related to (even more) personal experiences which I am not in a mood to share tonight and are, in any event, not directly relevant to the question.

----

I hope that didn't help.

LIL,
SHCR 8

[8bitagent]

I swear, OP ED and TKL are wise beyond their years, and more in tune of life than any Christian I've met. I'd almost have to agree in part with both your guy's positions.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

I'm going to comment about the original post and why it seems that we live in a world where horrible things happen and no one can do anything to stop it. In fact I believe we are probably living in an era where the most good ever in human history is being done.

Though I didn't live back then I believe that unspeakable horror happened commonly 500 years ago...1000 years ago...all the way back to the origins of humanity. The difference between back then and now is that today you can learn of many horrors that happen to average people, from the bastard that kills a small baby in the middle of a street to learning that 100,000+ people died in a tsumani. Even just 100 years ago how did the common person learn about these things? They weren't reported on the news. You learned about it if you happened to live within the social proximity of the crime committed.

With the rise of the proliferation of information we are learning about more horrors. Today we hear about a murder that happened across the city, or a murder spree across the country or around the planet. There is law enforcement and a general sense of order that suggests to the common person that these sorts of crimes are not to be tolerated. Compare that to even just 100 years ago when a woman or child could be sexually assaulted or killed and stood little chance of justice being enforced on the perpetrator.

I think that what's happening now is that we, the collective society, are being inundated with bad news and are doing one of two things: a) switching it off in our heads or b) letting our disgust for it grow. There are times when I can't stand to hear about an act of senseless violence but generally speaking, the larger picture is that we as a society are doing better to our common man than just a generation ago, let alone 100 or 1000 years ago. That is also not to say that there is still isn't much to be done for there is, but at least now humanity might be transitioning through a stage where things are getting better, though it's hard to see that when you open your morning newspaper and read a story like the one that began this thread.

[barracuda]

Attack Ships on Fire, I would hasten to disagree with you regard ing at least part of your post here.. The technology for the near instantaneous transmission of bad news has grown right along with the technology for killing millions of people in relatively short periods of time. The attendant changes in human behaviour through the complete alienation of the machine age is sort of embodied by the Whitechapel murders of 120 years ago, wherein an anonymous killer brutally killed and mutilated five prostitutes and horrified the world. This type of violence is today (and has been for the last century) a commonplace. A serial killer with only a five person victim list is a piker, compared to what a high school or college student with a few fire arms can accomplish in an afternoon, which is promptly processed through the news cycle just in time for the next episode of life in the 21st century. There are what four or five on going genocides occurring at any given moment, and the process of war has been largely automated. Your main premise (we are probably living in an era where the most good ever in human history is being done) is, I think correct, but that process as well has been somewhat automated for better or worse.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

Attack Ships on Fire, I would hasten to disagree with you regard ing at least part of your post here.. The technology for the near instantaneous transmission of bad news has grown right along with the technology for killing millions of people in relatively short periods of time. The attendant changes in human behaviour through the complete alienation of the machine age is sort of embodied by the Whitechapel murders of 120 years ago, wherein an anonymous killer brutally killed and mutilated five prostitutes and horrified the world. This type of violence is today (and has been for the last century) a commonplace. A serial killer with only a five person victim list is a piker, compared to what a high school or college student with a few fire arms can accomplish in an afternoon, which is promptly processed through the news cycle just in time for the next episode of life in the 21st century. There are what four or five on going genocides occurring at any given moment, and the process of war has been largely automated. Your main premise (we are probably living in an era where the most good ever in human history is being done) is, I think correct, but that process as well has been somewhat automated for better or worse.

I don't necessarily agree but my reasons aren't backed with available facts that I can link to right now. I agree that technology has allowed for the killing of greater numbers of human beings by fewer perpetrators but I disagree that genocide is something confined to recent times. While there may have been a smaller population on the Earth the further back one looks into time there has always been acts of mass killing by one ethnic, tribal or nation group against others. The only thing that has changed as the further into recent history we get is the number of victims in each purge. But if 99 years ago Genghis Khan decides to wipe out a race of people in the neighboring country the news didn't get picked up by CNN back then and people didn't register their disgust for the act. I'm not trying to say that the 20th/21st centuries are this sugary utopia because they're not; look no further than at the failure of Somalia for proof of a world body failing a specific group of persecuted individuals. But what has changed from even a hundred years ago is that acts of genocide are being viewed as evil and in some cases there is a coordinated effort to assist displaced peoples. Your example of Jack the Ripper is a case in point: the newspapers of the time carried the murder of the women but where in the news headlines was there news about English colonialism?

Yes, today a serial killer or deranged madman can walk into a school or building a kill a dozen people, but what happened before Jack the Ripper? I don't subscribe to the idea that serial killing began with Jack; I think life was a lot more cheaper the further back one looks and acts of murder were more commonplace. 200 years ago it wasn't looked upon as out of the ordinary for a family to take their young children to witness a hanging. One hundred years before that a child could expect to see a dead body or two during their formative just lying on the side of the road when their family went into town. My point is extreme violence, acts of barbarity and looking down on other people of different races as being less human was tolerated, if not just routinely accepted as the way things are. The development of modern civilization, warts and all, has moved forward and those kinds of viewpoints are being erased with newer viewpoints.

I do think that the proliferation of information and technology is leading the charge for the betterment of mankind as a whole. Technology and the spread of available information, those two things aren't white horses and both can be used for evil but, by and large, I believe humanity as a whole is better off than it was 100 years ago with these things. Again, this is looking at things from a macro view of humanity.

[tKl]

I swear, OP ED and TKL are wise beyond their years, and more in tune of life than any Christian I've met. I'd almost have to agree in part with both your guy's positions.

Wow! And I believe you. I mean, I think you are saying what you feel to be true. Thank you.

It's difficult. I couldn't imagine trying to tell a women to do one thing or the other.

Abortion exists. It always has and it always will. There should be moral-RATIONAL guidelines to it.

[nathan28]

I'm going to bump this.

Last night I had to watch some "documentary" on PBS that felt to me like an expensive holiday in your own misery: A bunch of the descendants of a wealthy family going on a travelogue to learn about their slave-trading ancestor and his impact. The family got rich trading slaves and they were relatively privileged.

One thing became apparent to me quickly: none of them, save maybe one who said something like, "well, i'm wearing clothes made by people who weren't paid what they were worth" seemed that, well, conscious of their interconnections, particularly the negative ones.

It bothered me that they had picked a fairly sanitized, PC battle to fight. They talked about the emotional pain of having to handle manacles. Civil War's over. Couple million white people died in it. The larger part of that battle's done. You certainly didn't see them talking about improving infrastructure in the inner cities, but rather, reparations. Poorly-formed and poorly-informed intentions lead to poor outcomes, i'll suggest.

Then the bombshell dropped: a significant number of them were Ivy League grads.

They just didn't know about slavery.

Maybe it's different because I'm from the South so our history lessons usually went on much longer than they were supposed to. My hometown was a port-of-call for the slave trade. They have plenty of damn exhibits nearby. The Civil War is practically still a living memory there, so it's not like those lessons will fade anytime soon.

But then this Yankee elite gets behind a camera and doesn't even know that slavery was a serious business? They didn't know that smuggling rum and sugar goods and humans were a significant part of the pre-industrial American economy? They didn't realize that banks and ins. cos. were founded with the money from the slave trade?

As an aside I found pathetic their personal struggles over "healing" for themselves. If they actually wanted to fucking heal, why weren't they fasting and flagellating and prostrating?

Well, what does this have to do with the initial post?

Simple. These Ivy League elites--our supposed leaders--seemingly equipped with a broad, liberal education of the highest caliber, and more than enough wealth, didn't know that evil exists or that we are connected to it. They came off as utterly pusillanimous. They didn't have the ability to experience what Koestler termed "the tragic plane." So it's no wonder.